How to Prove Christianity False in Five Minutes

How to Prove Christianity False in Five Minutes

I believe that traditional Christianity can be proven false in five minutes by knocking out the three pillars of the Christian Faith (belief system):

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

The Accuracy of Old Testament Prophecy

The Witness of the Holy Spirit

And here is the evidence that destroys these three superstition-based claims:

Based on cumulative human experience, it is much more probable that the early Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus was due to one disciple’s bereavement hallucination (probably Simon Peter’s) than a once in history reanimation of a three-day-brain-dead corpse. Persons who experience hallucinations believe them to be real life experiences. If Paul was able to convince first century Jews in Asia Minor that he had seen a resurrected Jesus based on a “heavenly vision”, then Simon Peter was surely capable of convincing first century Jews (including the other disciples) in Palestine that he had seen the resurrected Jesus, even though his experience had really been an hallucination. The remainder of the “appearances” of Jesus listed in the Early Creed of First Corinthians 15 could simply have been static images (illusions) something we see today with alleged group sightings of the Virgin Mary. The Early Creed gives no details whatsoever of these appearances. The detailed appearances in the four Gospels may well be literary embellishments, very common in Greco-Roman biographies, the genre of literature in which most New Testament scholars, including many conservative Christian scholars, believe the authors of the Gospels were writing.

2. The Book of Daniel is a blatant fraud. The book very accurately portrays the events in the Greek Empire down to abstract minutia but makes major errors regarding the Babylonian and Persian empires, the empires during which the book’s author infers the book was written. Jesus quotes from this fraudulent book. Jesus, who was not a scholar, was fooled by the author. Modern scholars are not fooled.

3. The “witness of the Holy Spirit” is a joke. Christians can no more prove that the voice that allegedly speaks to them is their god than can the Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jews, and others prove that the voice that speaks to them is their god. Watch this powerful video for proof:

Death is defined as the complete and permanent cessation of all vital bodily functions (circulatory, respiratory, and brain). Within hours after death, rigor mortis sets in and various degenerative processes begin. There have been no reliable or scientific reports of anyone regaining their vital functions once they have totally ceased. Although there are various medical interventions in our modern-day society that can delay death, no such devices or methods existed in the first century. Conclusion: death is final and irreversible.

I’m very curious to know how many different cultures (other than your own native culture/home) have you experienced, better yet lived among for at least say… 3-4 months or longer, possibly even learning some of their language? Please give the exact number. Thank you sir. 🙂

You are viewing death purely from a human standing. Jesus is God the Creator and only took the role of a human being in order to pay the price for sin. This He did out of pure love, a love that for most of us is sadly illusive.

True Christians live to love and serve others following the actions of Jesus when He became a man. Sadly there are millions who muddy the water with false faith and erroneous lifestyles under the banner of Christianity.

If am wrong and you are right nothing changes, but if I am right then the afterlife is going to be a lamentable experience.

And how sad that you all seem to think that death (as the world knows it) is all there is… What a waste…

I pray that you will all come to know the Creator God who created you out of love for the purpose of (true) love which is unconditional.

“If (I) am wrong and you are right nothing changes, but if I am right then the afterlife is going to be a lamentable experience.”

You are correct. If I am wrong and you are right, I am going to suffer eternal torment in (the Christian) hell. But have you ever considered this fact: If Islam is right, and YOU are wrong, YOU are going to suffer eternal torment in (the Muslim) hell. And the same can be said about every other exclusivist religion, sect, and cult on the planet: If you are wrong, you are going to be punished, in some form, in the after-life, for not having joined this group.

So there is no way to hedge your bets, Andrew. I do not believe that the evidence for Christianity is any better than the evidence for Islam. At least we know who wrote the Koran. For most of the books of the Bible, we have no idea who really wrote them.

Have you studied, in depth, every other exclusivist religion, sect, and cult on the planet to make 100% sure that you have made the correct choice? What if being “one of the chosen” is not about YOU choosing, but about that particular god choosing you; and he/she/or it has not chosen you and you simply THINK you are “saved”? If one lives in the world of the supernatural, one cannot be sure that knowledge (educating yourself) is the key to knowing which religion is correct. All that is left for you, Andrew, is hope, or more accurately, wishful thinking.

In my worldview, reason and science are the foundation to truth and knowledge. And by using reason and science I have concluded that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are simply human inventions based on ancient superstitions. So in order to prove me wrong, you will need to do more than try to frighten me with threats of eternal damnation. You will need to provide evidence that your specific god exists (Yahweh/Jesus the Christ), that he has the power the Bible says he does, and that the Bible really speaks for him. Are you willing to do that? If so, please begin by proving to me the existence of the ancient Hebrew god, Yahweh (specific evidence for Yahweh, not just a generic Creator).

Very well stated Gary! I truly hope this comment does not fall on deaf-ears (eyes) and a calloused heart. I’m all for holding out hope for those few with the courage to ask questions, LOTS of questions, THOUSANDS of questions if need be, to see the Wizard behind the green curtain! 😉

If Jesus is God, how is it that he did not know the day nor the hour when he would return? Apparently, only the other God, God the Father knows. Again, if only God the Father knows, then apparently the third God, God the Holy Spirit doesn’t know either. You might be forced into Trinity gobbledegook to try and justify you position.

Thanks for another data point. I’ve been watching for when preachers show up on non-believer websites, and counting how many posts before they pull out THE THREAT™. You made it all the way to your second post before threatening us.

Once I collect enough of these, I’ll look to see if there are any patterns to this. It should be interesting.

It is out of love that I have replied to you. Fear is something we create within ourselves, often through doubt and events that never actually happen. My aim is not to frighten you nor threaten you.

The whole point is that Yahweh is the Creator and all around us is proof of that Creation. The complexity of the Earth, the human body and DNA (in particular) are undeniable proof that there is an intelleigent designer. Numerous scientists now agree with this. Some now accept the bibilcal explanation and some do not. Human theories, like evolution remain a theory which is not proof. We must have come from somewhere.

However, please notice that you are directing me to sites that provide evidence for a Creator. I have never denied the existence of a Creator. I am very much aware that science has not proven the origin of the universe. Therefore since the “jury” is still out on this issue, I remain neutral on this issue. That is why I describe myself as an agnostic. I do not rule out any possible explanations, including the intelligent design of a Creator.

That said, I do seriously doubt the existence of your god, Yahweh. Could you please provide evidence that specifically proves the existence of Yahweh?

No I didn’t. But I just checked my email trash and spam bins and found it in the spam bin for some reason. Yes, you may absolutely repost anything on my blog to yours. I am not writing to win a Pulitizer. I am writing to spread the Good News of reason, science, and rationality!

Your thesis is incorrect. You don’t need to attack three things. You only need to attack the resurrection. Prove the resurrection to be false and that’s the end of Christianity. I’m just trying to save you some time.

Yes, I read the post. I read it when it was first published.
Where were you?
Obviously you are simply trolling.
But I agree with you.
However, I did not say it happened, I merely said I cannot see how one could disprove that the character Jesus of Nazarene resurrected.

You and I are approaching this from different perspectives.
Normal people do not believe in the resurrection.
But to disprove the tale is, in my view, as impossible to prove that Harry Potter did not really fly on a broomstick.
However, it is not that difficult to prove that Harry Potter is simply a work of fiction, thus negating any need to worry about wizards whizzing around with a length broomstick between their legs.

WOW! You win the prize! That’s exactly what everything hinges on … and NO ONE yet has been able to prove it really happened. All you (or any believer) has to “confirm” such an event ever took place are the words in a (VERY) old book.

BTW, are you ready for the rapture that’s supposed to take place tomorrow? At least “tomorrow” in certain parts of the world. If you live where it’s already September 23rd … whoops! Guess you missed it.

Then again, it is also possible that ALL the early Christian appearance claims were based on individuals and groups of people seeing illusions. Gullible, highly superstitious, religious people often see what they want to see. This past summer, hundreds of people in Ireland believed that the Virgin Mary appeared to them in the clouds. There is even a Youtube video of this event. (Do you see her in the video?? Nope! It’s an illusion).]

Christians believe that eyewitnesses saw the resurrected Jesus walk, talk, eat broiled fish, and levitate into space. How could anyone confuse such actions with an illusion? I agree. If a group of people claimed to see a dead man performing these actions, it would be difficult to attribute this experience to an illusion.

However, the problem for Christians is that the majority of scholars do not believe that the Gospels are primary source documents, written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses. Therefore we cannot be certain that the detailed appearance stories in the Gospels were historical events, legends, or simply literary fiction.

The overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the Gospels were written in the literary genre of Greco-Roman biography. In this genre of literature, it was perfectly acceptable to change and even invent details about an historical character as long as the central elements of the story remained intact. Therefore the real early Christian resurrection appearance claims could be what we find in the Early Creed of First Corinthians chapter 15. If you read this passage, notice that there are zero details given about these alleged appearances. No mention of Jesus walking, talking, eating, or touching anyone: Therefore it is possible that every alleged eyewitness and every alleged group of eyewitnesses only saw a cloud formation, shadow on a hillside, or BRIGHT LIGHT (like Paul)…and believed it was Jesus…just as hundreds of devout Christians this summer, in one place and at the same time, believed that they saw a woman who has been dead for 20 centuries appear to them in the sky above them.

The other little problem is Jesus body was missing. The Roman and Jewish authorities could have shut down the early Christians by parading the corpse through Jerusalem. Suppose those guys hallucinated too?

So said the anonymous author of the Gospel of Mark, who the majority of NT scholars say was not an eyewitness or the associate of an eyewitness, writing many decades after the alleged event, in a foreign language, in a location far, far away from Palestine.

But even if the Empty Tomb story is historical, there are many natural explanations for an empty tomb.

Why didn’t the Jews or Romans produce the body to shut up the Christians? Possible answers:

–They were not the ones who moved the body so they had no idea where the body was.
–They could have cared less. Jesus was an insignificant, pacifist, trouble-maker. He was not the big deal the Gospels make him out to be. No one gave a rat’s behind that a handful of Galilean peasants were ranting and raving that their dead leader had come back to life.

There is no proof it is recorded history. It is a story in a first century Greco-Roman biography; a story plagiarized by two, maybe three other authors of later, first century, Greco-Roman biographies.

At the risk of you making snide remarks … my response would be that proving Christianity requires more than simply “quoting scripture,” or referencing examples from a centuries old book, or citing personal instances of answered prayer, or claiming miraculous healings, etc., etc.

While you yourself may not have made these claims, scores of others have. And none of them hold water. They are all based on personal belief (faith, if you will) that there is an (unseen and unheard) supernatural power that exists somewhere in “the great beyond” and who is actually interested in the inhabitants of this singular planet.

Proving Christianity (i.e., “God”) will never be accomplished through examples, historians, apologists, or personal testimonies. It can only be effected through certain neural pathways (as Victoria as so aptly pointed out numerous times).

John, as is the case with many Christians, you are conflating evidence for the historicity of Jesus with evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection. We have substantial evidence that Caesar Augustus was a real historical person, but we have no good evidence that he was a god with supernatural powers as some Romans claimed and believed.

The only evidence that Christians have for the supernatural claim of a resurrection is alleged eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is sufficient for car accidents and murder trials, but it is not sufficient for out of this world, extra-ordinary claims such as Martian abductions and reanimations of brain-dead bodies.

Probably. But atheism doesn’t require others to “convert.” Atheists may offer reasons why “God-believers” don’t have a leg to stand on, but they aren’t threatening them with eternal damnation if they refuse to stop believing.

Having said that, I do recognize there are some “hard-core” atheists that tend to push their “non-belief” rather vigorously. But the difference, at least in my opinion, is they simply want believers to think for themselves and stop relying on what they have been told/taught. Numerous individuals have related that they became atheist simply because they actually read their bible (word-for-word) and/or did research on the history of Christianity. Those that “defend” their faith with the most vigor are usually able to offer little more than platitudes and clichés.

The word “prove,” especially if meaning with 100% certainty, is used by either Christian apologists or secularists regarding the Synoptic Gospels and the resurrection story, then both sides are fully responsible for “100% certainty proof.” I’m sure you understand this Ark. For me, because the subject is two millenia past, in a region of the world of high volatility, utter violence daily/weekly, and unimaginable oppression by an Empire no modern person will experience or possibly appreciate fully, AND many relavent records and manuscripts then were easily lost and destroyed (except what Rome wanted), it seems more suitable and wiser to deal in degrees of probability, plausibility, some truths, and their reciprocals. And so with that JB wrote…

You only need to attack the resurrection.

When discussing the veracity of the Synoptic Gospels and Paul’s epistles, the events they narrate and purport, I typically factor in date-of-writings to glean an overall timeline/chronology. I use a c.65 CE to c.90 CE window for the three gospels, but without splitting hairs if everyone is discussing likely dates somewhere between c.40 CE to c.100 CE for the three. Regarding the bulk of Paul’s letters, I’m fine with dates close to c.55 CE but not before. So for me, the significant time-relations for these three gospels suggest they are NOT 100% (nor 50%? 20%?) reliable; afterall, the original extant Gospel of Mark (the very first gospel written c.55 CE) ends at v. 16:8, in the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, BOTH highly regarded earliest bibles. In other words, as you are probably already aware Ark, those first extant Mark-versions mention NOTHING of LATER resurrection stories of Yeshua. This glaring omission or non-event, considered with the fact that Paul (whose extant epistles were written BEFORE these Mark-versions) does not discuss at all, much less in any hinting manner, an actual “resurrection” story! This strongly suggests (for me) the purported resurrection, ascension, etc, were later added myth/mystic divination creations — a very common practice of the time for kings and emperors.

To further clarify, these later Yeshua events in all likelihood did NOT happen as the later Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John purport — further suggesting the then new Greco-Roman Christian Church Fathers (not the James the Just and Jerusalem Council followers) intentionally had to “modify” texts or rewrite them to their own more favorable version in order to better attract/convert Gentile Roman populations.

So again, since the earliest extant gospel (Mark) does NOT have any resurrection story and Paul doesn’t discuss it with any “certainty” or as a “proof” method — for he was much more interested in his own Christology opposed to Jerusalem’s Messianism and his bigly Gentile-conversion numbers — it is for me quite safe and very reasonable for everyone to consider the LATER Greco-Hellenic-Romanized “resurrection” stories/myths as political manuevering, not factual. Might you agree Ark? 🙂

And don’t forget, people survived crucifixion all the time. Even Josephus wrote about people surviving the cross:

“I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.”

“No, the Ahmadiyya (a branch of Islam) maintain that Jesus died (and is entombed) in Kashmir.”

So your faith isn’t even based on a specific piece of history? Wonderful! I applaud your bravery! This declaration of evidence-less belief will open you up to much ridicule from the godless commentors.

I’m still not convinced the resurrection has been debunked but you keep the faith, John!

Josephs didn’t record that people survived crucifixions “all the time”. The quote you cited gives a ration of one in three.

But we’ll put that aside and I’ll explain to you why Josephus’ record isn’t important.

You’re suggesting that because some people survive crucifixion, Jesus survived crucifixion (and is buried in Kashmir). This doesn’t need to be ‘debunked’ because it is fallacious logic from the start. Your syllogism is:

Even the story indicates Jesus didn’t die. His legs were not broken, which results in suffocation, which actually kills the person. He was given a “drink,” then suddenly “died” seconds later. Died, or made to look dead? And let’s not forget, the oldest gospel, Mark, didn’t even originally include the resurrection. That part was added (by stealth) generations later. The original story simply ends with an empty tomb.

So, person whose legs were not broken, taken off the cross after only a matter of hours, “entombed” on private property, a historical account of people surviving crucifixions, original story not even mentioning a “resurrection,” a tomb in India.

That’s a lot of data points.

Now, let’s review what you have… a physical universe that has, over some 13.8 billion years, exhibited precisely ZERO supernatural properties or influences, a book containing a story which you point to as evidence for the story (nice circular reasoning), but, somewhat awkwardly (for you), that same book didn’t even originally contain the supernatural event you say happened.

You just offered over 180 words of nothing but pure faith!
I hope Taboo is paying attention!
He’s under the impression that you only say things when you have evidence. Clearly, you have crossed over to my side of the aisle! Welcome!

How do you think your newfound faith will impact your standing with the heathen on this blog?

(I’m predicting they won’t say anything nasty to you because they won’t figure out that you have adopted a faith.)

American researcher and committed Christian Suzanne Olsson, is one person who has studied and written about the tomb for many years. She led efforts to obtain DNA samples from the tomb and carried out further research there. She has no doubt Jesus Christ(as) is buried in that tomb

American researcher and committed Christian Suzanne Olsson, is one person who has studied and written about the tomb for many years. She led efforts to obtain DNA samples from the tomb and carried out further research there. She has no doubt Jesus Christ(as) is buried in that tomb

JZ, you’re toast. The article fully and completely debunks your century old hypothesis. And before you come back with yet another frivolous, faith-based objection, take a look at who published the article.

These are just three examples of researchers coming from very different countries and faith traditions, yet arriving at the same opinion about the Rozabal Tomb in Kashmir. It should also be noted that none of these three are Ahmadi Muslims, which provides a strong counter argument to those claiming that this theory about the tomb is merely an Ahmadi concoction.

I bet you’re regretting posting that article…

But John, do please tell me why the oldest gospel didn’t include the resurrection.

John, excellent points and challenge. But if people who are too afraid of being with the ‘wrong crowd’ and would rather save face, there’s not much else to discuss — leave them to their own devices and misapprehensions and fantasies. I believe osteriches do the exact same thing around sand. 😉

(P.S. Osteriches don’t actually do that, but the analogy still applies)

Do they realize/know that many historical scholars conclude it is probable/likely that all or some of Josephus’ specific chronicles were tampered with by the Early Church? That makes sense given that there is practically NO OTHER fully independent corroborations for the ‘spectacular’ events of Jesus as “recounted” in the gospels. Not to mention that Josephus and Yeshua were both Jews. Some partiality certainly exists there IF (emphasis on IF) Josephus’ very VERY brief accounts about Yeshua might be valid.

Gary, you have an outstanding, well-informed blog on a popular societal-cerebral infection. Offering those who really REALLY seek cumulative, collective truths, will indeed find THIS as a cure and the beginning of rehab from peer-pressure, peer-assimilation/indoctrinatiion, and the Placebo-effect inside orthodoxy!

Actually it is. The term is historical fiction and no genuine biblical scholar considers it otherwise.
This is why I said it was unnecessary to try to disprove the resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene.

While Christians like to claim so much of the bible is fact and Jesus is simply the fulfillment of prophecy, by dismantling everything that leads up to the resurrection leaves the character high and dry.

In truth, many Christians realise this, and certainly scholars, which is why the resurrection of Jesus has been deemed THE central tenet of their faith and they have been encouraged, especially through apologetics, to simply ignore each and every demonstration of why their bible can be considered nothing but historical fiction.
To them, in the long run, it really does not matter,simply because the resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene cannot be disproved.

This is not to say one has to consider it is anything but fiction, which all normal people already recognise.

The evidence against every other nonsensical claim simply has to be collated and presented as a seamless order rather than allowing them to use the bible like a buffet to pick individual stories to try justify their silly beliefs. Eventually, the individual will be faced with an insurmountable mountain of evidence that even faith cannot climb.
Some will still cling to the Resurrection. Most eventually won’t.
it’ll happen.
Just slower than might be expected.

But the internet will kill off Christianity – it’s already happening – and once it is left in tatters who knows how long before the others will give up the (holy) ghost?

“John, as is the case with many Christians, you are conflating evidence for the historicity of Jesus with evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection. We have substantial evidence that Caesar Augustus was a real historical person, but we have no good evidence that he was a god with supernatural powers as some Romans claimed and believed.”

Actually, I’m not conflating anything. I have not suggested (because I do not believe) the historicity of Jesus proves the historicity of the resurrection. My suggestion was (and is) that Christianity hinges on the resurrection. Demonstrate the resurrection was faked and Christianity collapses. In order to do this, you must provide actual historical evidence of chicanery and not just fabricate alternative explanations.

“The only evidence that Christians have for the supernatural claim of a resurrection is alleged eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is sufficient for car accidents and murder trials, but it is not sufficient for out of this world, extra-ordinary claims such as Martian abductions and reanimations of brain-dead bodies.”

True.
And if martian abductions and reanimation of dead bodies were as common as car accidents, then they wouldn’t be supernatural events. That’s the reason we don’t see the “First Church of Car Crashes” popping up in every town.

It always comes down to faith. You can speculate about the motives of first-century eyewitnesses but you’ll never be able to prove you’re correct. So assuming the biblical authors were just superstitious or deluded is an act of faith.

AND for the record: I’m not on the offensive here. Not thumping the Bible or yelling about hellfire. It may shock you to hear this but, I don’t care about converting you. It’s no sweat off my back if you stay an atheist. But I do think there’s value in opposing points of view. And if there IS a good reason to suspect the New Testament is false, I want to hear it. I don’t want to waste another day following a lie.

Out of sequence? The first account of the story failed to mention the resurrection… The thing you say your religion hinges on. It fails to mention 40 quite remarkable days, culminating in a small thing called The Great Commission.

Didn’t the author of Mark think something called The Great Commission important?

And so to remind you, you wrote:

And if there IS a good reason to suspect the New Testament is false, I want to hear it. I don’t want to waste another day following a lie.

By what you’ve just written, it seems you’re actually quite happy wasting your days “following a lie.”

That is, of course, unless you can rationally explain why the oldest account of the story fails entirely to mention the most important part of the story…

Ah, so you don’t have a rational explanation for why the oldest account of the story failed entirely to mention the most important part of the whole story.

I see.

In that original work, the author of Mark simply says a young man was there at the tomb. He says, “He has risen. That’s in English. But let’s look at that word (a verb) in the original Greek. ἠγέρθη (ēgerthē): meaning, Get up, Awake, Stand.

The Greek work for resurrection (as in, of the dead) is anástasi

That word is not used in the original text.

And then we have the author of Mark simply forgetting to mention the 40 days Jesus walked and talked and ate with his followers, culminating in the delivery of The Great Commission.

The author of Mark forgot to mention The Great Commission?

The author of Mark forgot to mention the resurrection?

But OK, if you’re fine with this, then I guess you’re fine with this. After all, you did write:

And if there IS a good reason to suspect the New Testament is false, I want to hear it. I don’t want to waste another day following a lie.

“My suggestion was (and is) that Christianity hinges on the resurrection. Demonstrate the resurrection was faked and Christianity collapses. In order to do this, you must provide actual historical evidence of chicanery and not just fabricate alternative explanations.”

Let’s reword that statement:

“Islam hinges on the appearance of the angel Gabriel to the prophet Mohammad. Demonstrate this event was faked/did not occur and Islam collapses. In order to do this, you must provide actual historical evidence of chicanery and not just fabricate alternative explanations.”

Do you see the problem? Just because I cannot provide actual historical evidence that Mohammad was not visited by a heavenly being does not mean this claim is true.

In western culture, the burden of proof is on the person making the extra-ordinary claim not on the person questioning that extra-ordinary claim. The burden of proof is on both Christians and Muslims to prove their supernatural claims, not on skeptics to disprove them.

Archives

Archives

Text Widget

This is a text widget, which allows you to add text or HTML to your sidebar. You can use them to display text, links, images, HTML, or a combination of these. Edit them in the Widget section of the Customizer.